【阅读】0811越杜整理（0820更新，38篇原始，37篇考古）

派派大王

终于找到了，来膜下楼主

chongchong14

关于第二篇奴隶船的背景知识

The Amistad revolt

In January 1839, 53 African natives were kidnapped from eastern Africa and sold into the Spanish slave trade. They were then placed aboard a Spanish slave ship bound for Havana, Cuba.
Once in Havana, the Africans were classified as native Cuban slaves and purchased at auction by two Spaniards, Don Jose Ruiz and Don Pedro Montez. The two planned to move the slaves to another part of Cuba. The slaves were shackled and loaded aboard the cargo schooler Amistad (Spanish for "friendship") for the brief coastal voyage.

However, three days into the journey, a 25-year-old slave named Sengbe Pieh (or "Cinque" to his Spanish captors) broke out of his shackles and released the other Africans. The slaves then revolted, killing most of the crew of the Amistad, including her cook and captain. The Africans then forced Montez and Ruiz to return the ship to Africa.

During the day, the ship sailed due east, using the sun to navigate. However, at night Montez and Ruiz would change course, attempting to return to Cuba. The zig-zag journey continued for 63 days.

The ship finally grounded near Montauk Point, Long Island, in New York State. The United States federal government seized the ship and its African occupants -- who under U.S. law were "property" and therefore cargo of the ship. On August 29, 1839, the Amistad was towed into New London, Connecticut.

The government charged the slaves with piracy and murder, and classified them as salvage property. The 53 Africans were sent to prison, pending hearing of their case before the U.S. Circuit Court in Hartford, Connecticut.

The stage was set for an important, controversial, and highly politicized case. Local abolitionist groups rallied around the Africans' cause, organizing a legal defense, hiring a translator for the Africans, and providing material support. Meanwhile, the Spanish government pressured the U.S. President, Martin Van Buren, to return the slaves to Spain without trial.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/revolt.html

Yourcent

楼主辛苦了，感谢

蘑菇酱p

19题美国总统应该是prep里的那题吧，我做模考的时候遇到过

蘑菇酱p

这是我做到的题，美国总统那个
In a new book about the antiparty feeling of the early political leaders of the United States, Ralph Ketcham argues that the first six Presidents differed decisively from later Presidents because the first six held values inherited from the classical humanist tradition of eighteenth-century England. In this view, government was designed not to satisfy the private desires of the people but to make them better citizens; this tradition stressed the disinterested devotion of political leaders to the public good. Justice, wisdom, and courage were more important qualities in a leader than the ability to organize voters and win elections. Indeed, leaders were supposed to be called to office rather than to run for office. And if they took up the burdens of public office with a sense of duty, leaders also believed that such offices were naturally their due because of their social preeminence or their contributions to the country. Given this classical conception of leadership, it is not surprising that the first six Presidents condemned political parties. Parties were partial by definition, self-interested, and therefore serving something other than the transcendent public good.

Even during the first presidency (Washington's), however, the classical conception of virtuous leadership was being undermined by commercial forces that had been gathering since at least the beginning of the eighteenth century. Commerce—its profit-making, its self-interestedness, its individualism—became the enemy of these classical ideals. Although Ketcham does not picture the struggle in quite this way, he does rightly see Jackson's tenure (the seventh presidency) as the culmination of the acceptance of party, commerce, and individualism. For the Jacksonians, nonpartisanship lost its relevance, and under the direction of Van Buren, party gained a new legitimacy. The classical ideals of the first six Presidents became identified with a privileged aristocracy, an aristocracy that had to be overcome in order to allow competition between opposing political interests. Ketcham is so strongly committed to justifying the classical ideals, however, that he underestimates the advantages of their decline. For example, the classical conception of leadership was incompatible with our modern notion of the freedoms of speech and press, freedoms intimately associated with the legitimacy of opposing political parties.

clz123134

同意楼上，顺便贴上cd prep07阅读笔记里对那篇文章的梳理：（Prep07 Practice Test #1 Essay 9）
文章的七经八脉：
“Ralph Ketcham”说美国的前六位总统受18世纪英国古典人文主义传统的影响很重----介绍一下那个时候的“leader”是什么样子的，要求是什么----作者开始发表自己的观点---其实从华盛顿开始商业的力量就不可忽视了---虽然“Ralph Ketcham”并没有提这点，但是他说明了这个影响在第7人总统是达到顶点----“Ralph Ketcham”低估了“classical ideals”减少的优势。
总体上来讲，这篇文章是一个评论观点的文章，全文围绕着“Ralph Ketcham”的观点展开并对其观点的正确之处和错误之处给予指出和点评。作者最后发表了自己的观点。因此主旨较为容易确定。但是细节较多，文章中的比较难理解的句子还是较多的。

一定会成功噢耶

谢谢

帝殒0417

第五篇看着眼熟，结果回去查了查，原来之前做的是17世纪美国女性，白高兴了。

zzyzhuoying

楼主辛苦了~

Nicholas_Qi

谢楼主整理分享！